Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward, Neil J. Wilkof, and Merpel. Nicola Searle is currently on sabbatical. Read, post comments and participate! E-mail the Kats here

The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy

Wednesday, 25 June 2008

A press release from the UK Intellectual Property Office reports on the Trading Standards Consumer Affairs Conference in Bournemouth, which the UK-IPO describes as "an opportunity ... to celebrate the success of partnership working and new legislative powers in the on-going fight against IP Crime".

Right: there ought to be a prize-winning caption to fit this touching illustration of law enforcement

According to the press release,

"A new and effective enforcement tool in the fight against IP crime is asset confiscation. Using new legislation, the Proceeds of Crime Act [not so new: this Act was passed in July 2002], a Sheffield dealer selling counterfeit designer goods worth millions of pounds was recently told to pay back the proceeds of her crimes - £2.8million - or face 10 years in prison.

Other successes include the recent pilot scheme between the Wales Regional Intelligence Unit and the Optical Media Industry anti-piracy units which, with the support of Trading Standards, Police and Regional Asset Recovery Teams has led to major disruption of both physical and on-line crime groups. ...

Detective Sergeant Graham Mogg, Intelligence Co-ordinator, who joined the UK-IPO from South Wales Police in August 2007 said: ''The criminal fraternity often view IP crime as a low risk, high profit business venture [But it is! Each year about 100 people in the UK are struck by lightning, but asset confiscations and forfeitures run at the rate of about two a month], however, the individuals and organised crime groups engaged in IP infringement undermine community values, impact on legitimate businesses and damage the UK economy".

The UK-IPO has taken this opportunity to advertise the existence of The Intellectual Property Crime Report 2007, which carries plenty of upbeat and highly information about the fight on fakes in the criminal sphere of activity. The Report contains the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1 Page 13UK-IPO, in conjunction with the new Strategic Advisory Board for IP policy(SABIP), to enhance the coordination of IP related research [first things first: SABIP has a bit of an IP learning curve ahead of it if it's going to be much use].

Recommendation 2 Page 16The Government (the UK-IPO) should work with IP Crime Group members to agree an accurate national standard measure of the level of IP crime, including industryrevenue loss, industry profit loss, criminal market size and criminal gain [this would be really helpful since, if nothing else, it gives a much better idea of the scale of the resources that are needed in tackling IP crime].

Recommendation 3 Page 16The Government to agree that the UK-IPO record the seizures of counterfeit andpirated goods from all enforcement authorities and publish the results of prosecutions and Proceeds of Crime actions on an annual basis.

Recommendation 4 Page 36The use of the Proceeds of Crime Act and Financial Investigators to be encouraged when prosecuting IP criminals.

Recommendation 5 Page 37Members of the IP rights owning community should be encouraged to providetraining and share expertise with enforcers to improve their technical knowledgeand understanding of IP [but the IP rights owners have being trying to do this for years, with organisations like the Anti-Counterfeiting Group doing much to bring the two together].

Recommendation 6 Page 39The UK-IPO to facilitate a continuing national programme of awareness-raisingwithin enforcement authorities and officials within the judicial process, with theassistance of brands and trade associations where appropriate [This should be fun!].

Recommendation 7 Page 40UK-IPO to develop and host a secure web-based resource that allows access by enforcers to counterfeit product identification guidelines and a contacts database listing brand protection departments and rights holders representatives’ details for use by the IP community [Can we assume that the competition authorities won't regard this is a veiled form of information-sharing for the purposes of establishing market dominance?].

Recommendation 8 Page 43Achieve the wider dissemination of expertise and knowledge pertinent to internetinvestigations through delivery by the IP rights owning community acrossenforcement agencies and the IP Crime Group membership [Gosh -- "pertinent"is an anagram of "internet" plus the letter "p" ...].

Recommendation 9 Page 60UK-IPO to engage at corporate level with UK businesses, to ensure an understanding of the responsibilities and work programme being progressed by the UK-IPO/IP Crime Group.

The IPKat is pleased that, at long last, the adversaries of IP crime -- the victims and the enforcement agencies -- are facing the same direction and have some sort of shared perspective on what ought to be done. Merpel says, someone involved in the production of the Intellectual Property Crime Report 2007 should be convicted of crimes against the environment. There are ten blank pages in the 98 page report. If you print them out, you will receive ten heavily coloured/shaded blanks. This is a waste of paper and printing cartridges. Please don't do this again!

IPKat Policies

This page summarises the IPKat policies on guest submissions and comments. If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation. To learn more about our guest submissions, comments and complaints policy and the procedure for lodging a complaint click here.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

Just click the magic box below and get this page translated into a bewildering selection of languages!